This is a conspiracy, it's a typical greedy big business (corporate farming -
who controls Washington along with beverage makers) attack on our personal
lives. Sure, we have the ability to make food choices but studies for
years have found that fructose and high fructose corn syrup (the corporate
manufactured kind) contribute to all kinds of ills from obesity to cancer.
The "industry" (corporate farming and soft drink manufacturers
including Cocoa Cola) has done everything in their power to suppress these
studies and always denies their significance. They can no longer do
that. All you vegetarians please note that there is NO DIFFERENCEbetween fructose (from fruit) or high fructose corn syrup in their
ability to feed cancer.

Please, please check the labels on everything you buy. The culprit can
be listed on the ingredients as: fructose; high fructose corn syrups; corn
solids; or corn products. You will find these things added to everything
from canned vegetables to "low fat" yogurt (especially those with
fruit or fruit flavoring) to most of the world of "low fat" and
"low calorie" products. Check the frozen product labels too -
including frozen French fries. You might find that you can no longer buy
some of your favorite foods - but if that means eliminating cancer and obesity,
so what!!!!

Many, many of McDonalds menu items have high fructose corn syrup in them and
even their fries have dextrose (a sugar) in them.

Please note that only Reuters is reporting this study which was released
Monday, August 2nd. No other main stream media is reporting this fact.

For all of you vegetarians out there - a corollary to this is that there are
more nitrates naturally occurring in vegetables than there are in bacon and
other processed food. You can find that at http://www.feedstuffsfoodlink.com/Media/MediaManager/nitrites_and_nitrates.pdf
which talks about the nitrates in vegetables, but not that they are higher
there. A little research on your part and you will discover that fact.

Heaney said his team found otherwise. They grew pancreatic
cancer cells in lab dishes and fed them both glucose and fructose.

Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to
proliferate. "Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite
different," Heaney's team wrote.

"I think this paper has a lot of public health implications. Hopefully,
at the federal level there will be some effort to step back on the amount of
high fructose corn syrup in our diets," Heaney said in a statement.

Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making
use of fructose.

U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup went up 1,000 percent between
1970 and 1990, researchers reported in 2004 in the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition.

The primary source of nitrites in our diets is
vegetables, and to a lesser degree water and other foods. While it’s
popularly believed that nitrates and nitrites mostly come from processed meats,
they’re actually a very small source of our nitrite intakes, less than 5-10%.
And nitrates aren’t present at all in commercially processed meats.

Nitrates occur naturally in vegetables and plants as a
result of the nitrogen cycle where nitrogen is fixed by bacteria. Dietary
studies around the world have found 70% (in UK) to over 97% (New Zealand) of
human consumption of nitrates and nitrites comes from vegetables alone,
regardless of organic or conventionally grown. On average, about 93% of the
nitrites we get each day comes from the nitrates in vegetables.

So, to see how much nitrate people are eating and if people
could be consuming too many vegetables and exceeding recommended daily intakes
for nitrates, the Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain of the EFSA
by the European Commission just published its report on Nitrates in
Vegetables in the June issue of EFSA Journal. They compiled 41,969
analytical results from 20 member states and Norway examining the nitrate levels
in produce. Nearly every vegetable tested contained measurable amounts of
nitrates, with averages varying from 1 to 4,800 ppm. For example, average levels
were:

arugula
4,677 ppm

basil 2,292 ppm

butterhead
lettuce 2,026 ppm

beets 1,279 ppm

celery 1,103 ppm

spinach 1,066 ppm

pumpkin 874 ppm

This compares to standard hotdogs or processed meats with
average nitrite levels of 10 ppm.

Which is in no way a justification to consume hot dogs or other unhealthy processed meats. Besides the harmful ingredients from processing, it is the cooking and charing of meats that is the biggest cause of carcinogens - and the same is actually true to a usually lesser extent of vegetables and non-meat items.

Goodness...... my oh my. Don't eat a steamed hot dog with 10 ppm
nitrates in it but dig into a plate of butterhead lettuce with 1200 ppm
nitrates. Fantastic logic. Didn't even comment on the fact that
fructose - from fruit, is just as bad for those with cancer (specifically pancreatic
cancer - but how about others) as is high fructose corn syrup and that the
cancer actually feeds on it.

Surely you aren't suggesting that eating a hot dog is healthier than eating lettuce or other vegetables?

Nitrites are the major problem in hot dogs and other processed meats, not nitrates. When meat is cooked, nitrites combine with other compounds to form carcinogenic nitrosamines. Unlike meat, vegetables contain compounds which prevent the formation of nitrosamines (such as Vitamin C). Study after study has found that cooked meat and meat products lead to increased cancer risks while increased vegetable consumption does not (and does in fact often lead to decreased cancer risks).

You cannot compare the naturally occuring sugars in fruits to industrially prepared and refined high fructose corn syrup. Man has been living with and been nourished by fruits for eons. Not so with commercially prepared high fructose corn syrup, which also happens to come from genetically modified corn about 85% of the time (most often "Roundup ready GMO corn").

HFCS is found in hot dogs along with many other things.As well as the hot dog bunns and the condiments used on it.This is a thread of ignorance extraordinare,hot dogs good veggies bad.Now thats funny shite.

Are
you actually trying to suggest that eating a hot dog is healthier than eating
lettuce or other vegetables? If so, that is patently absurd!

First
of all, the problem with hot dogs and other processed meats is mostly nitrites,
not nitrates. When meat is cooked, nitrites combine with other compounds
to form carcinogenic nitrosamines. Unlike meat, vegetables contain
valuable items and compounds (such as Vitamin C) which prevent the
formation of nitrosamines. That is why study after study has found that
cooked meat and meat products lead to increased cancer risks while increased
vegetable consumption does not (and does in fact often lead to decreased cancer
risks).

You obviously didn't read the link which took your comparison of nitrates to
nitrites into account - and still makes your comments rather illogical.

Comparing
the natural occuring sugars that occur in fruits to industrially prepared and
refined high fructose corn syrup is equally misleading. Man has been
living with and nourished by fruits for eons. Not so with commercially
prepared high fructose corn syrup, which also happens to come from
genetically modified corn 85% of the time (most often "Roundup ready
GMO corn").

I'll be the first one to agree with you regarding refined high fructose corn
syrup, but the statement in the research did not differentiate between the
two. You have failed to read what it said at the link regarding
fructose:

"They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary
refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined
fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer
growth."

Americans take in large amounts of fructose, mainly in high fructose corn
syrup, a mix of fructose and glucose that is used in soft drinks, bread and a
range of other foods.

The link goes on to state:

The industry has also argued that sugar is sugar.

Heaney said his team found otherwise. They grew pancreatic cancer cells in
lab dishes and fed them both glucose and fructose.

Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose
to proliferate. "Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism
are quite different," Heaney's team wrote.

I'll be the first one to get in line to help stamp out high fructose corn
syrup. However, that said, when you extract anything from its normal form
and use it as a concentrated ingredient in food in a completely different manner
than nature prepared it, you have problems.

You will notice that there is no difference between fructose from either
fruit or high fructose corn syrup relative to pancreatic cancer cells - they
(cancer cells) use fructose (no qualifier found) to proliferate.
There is no difference between the two in this research and it has implications
far beyond pancreatic cancer and even cancer itself. Note also that the
cancer also thrived on sugar which is what things like bread and potatoes become
in your belly.

You are in significant error when you state that "Man
has been living with and nourished by fruits for eons" - that is
what my ancestors would call blarney. To begin with, fruits are a seasonal
vegetation and they have only been available year round with the availability of
refrigeration and rapid transportation. Prior to that, canning began only after
the Civil War when they first began to can meats. So man could not have
been living with fruits for eons, not even 150 years - except perhaps in the
tropics. Add to that that the fruit produced today is nothing but
hybridized relatives of fruit found in nature (as in natural) and bears little
resemblance to it. The hybridized things you find on your grocery shelves
today have significantly more fructose in them that the race varieties and are
far from "natural." Other than berries, go find me some wild
fruit in North America today.

I have lived in Korea and I have traveled extensively in China. In
Korea in the early 1950s when I was there, fruit was a rarity and all I ever saw
was a peach at harvest time. No other time did I ever see fruit and the
one time I saw the peach in their market was the only time I saw fruit in
Korea. In China, by about November in the days that I was there the only
vegetation they had was bok choy. Bok choy is the only vegetation of any
kind the Chinese had that would keep over the winter time and I would see piles
of it on the street outside of a home, on carts, on peoples porches/decks, on
sampans, in markets - it was everywhere. By November there was no fruit to
be found anywhere! Not until the next Fall harvest. That represents
all of Asia prior to the middle of the last century. Recognize that even
by 1980 neither Korea nor China had refrigeration of any kind and a canning
industry was non existent. You can carry that on into Mongolia, Tibet, Nepal, Siberia
even India and whit is now Pakistan and many other parts of the world. DO
NOT try and peddle me the BS that man has lived on fruits for eons because I
know better and have personally seen that they have not. Asians have lived
on rice, bok choy, (other veggies when available) with very little to no meat
for thousands of years. With the modernization of Asia that has all
changed and so has their acquisition of Type II diabetes - particularly in India
where it has exploded even in their teenage population and where they don't even
eat meat products.

Fructose causes cancer cells to proliferate, it's that simple and the study
reinforced that position.

Actually, I have read the link entirely and nothing in it suggests anything counter to what I said earlier, which was that you cannot compare hot dogs and vegetables based on nitrate and nitrite content because it is not nitrates and nitrites that are dangerous but rather the nitrosamines which are formed when processed and cured meat is cooked.

You are the one who compared hot dogs to vegetables, not me. No matter how you try to justify it, such a comparison simply does not work.

Regarding cancer cells and fructose: However well cancer cells may be able to utilize fructose in vitro, it is quite a different ballgame in vivo. You see, virtually no fructose actually makes it to the cells, cancerous or otherwise, in the first place. Fructose is circulated from our digestive tract through the hepatic portal vein to the liver (The hepatic portal vein is a vein that brings all digested nutrients from the digestive tract to the liver before it goes into the general circulation.). Thus fructose from the digestive system reaches the liver before any other cells in the body. The liver then converts about 50% of this into glucose or lactate and the rest is primarily converted into triglycerides (fat). Fructose is not used directly by any cell in the body, it is almost 100% metabolized by the liver.

I don't doubt that high consumption of fructose may increase the growth of cancer cells, but would opine that it does so primarily from the increased glucose that comes from the body's processing of fructose. When it comes to natural fructose in fruits, a bowl of fruit may contain only a couple of grams of natural fructose, whereas a large soft drink may contain 60 grams of fructose from high fructose corn syrup. The best advice for cancer patients is to go easy on the fruits (consume three to four times as much vegetables as fruits), avoid heavy consumption of pure fruit juice, and avoid all high fructose corn syrup sweetened drinks and products as much as possible.

And finally, I did not say that man has been living ON fruits or that man has been consuming fruits on a year round daily basis for all of our existence. However, it is undeniable that man has been consuming fruits wherever and whenever they were to be found for as long as they have been found. Such has not been the case with high fructose corn syrup.

I simply do not agree with your interpretation of the link that provides
information pointing out that hot dogs have far few nitrates than
vegetables. I'll take her educated view over yours any day.

Regarding
cancer cells and fructose: However well cancer cells may be able to
utilize fructose in vitro, it is quite a different ballgame in vivo.
You see, virtually no fructose actually makes it to the cells, cancerous or
otherwise, in the first place. Fructose is circulated from our digestive
tract through the hepatic portal vein to the liver (The hepatic portal vein is a
vein that brings all digested nutrients from the digestive tract to the liver
before it goes into the general circulation.). Thus fructose from the
digestive system reaches the liver before any other cells in the body. The
liver then converts about 50% of this into glucose or lactate and the rest is
primarily converted into triglycerides (fat). Fructose is not used
directly by any cell in the body, it is almost 100% metabolized by the liver.

I
don't doubt that high consumption of fructose may increase the growth of cancer
cells, but would opine that it does so primarily from the increased glucose
that comes from the body's processing of fructose. When it comes to
natural fructose in fruits, a bowl of fruit may contain only a couple of grams
of natural fructose, whereas a large soft drink may contain 60 grams of fructose
from high fructose corn syrup. The best advice for cancer patients is to
go easy on the fruits (consume three to four times as much vegetables as
fruits), avoid heavy consumption of pure fruit juice, and avoid all high
fructose corn syrup sweetened drinks and products as much as possible.

You're back to the HFCS and nowhere in that study did if differentiate HFCS
from fructose. You are trying to twist a valid study that if we get on the
band wagon we can get to congress and get the FDA to do something about HFCS but
no you have to qualify it to some microcosm that isn't even relative by
discrediting that in vitro cancer cells thrive on FRUCTOSE and make it say
something else. You then give an "opinion" - and that's all it
is, regarding some kind of "good" fructose vs a "bad"
one. That is not what the study said. You are placing your
uneducated guess against science, the same thing that many, many, good alternative
folks do. They take a small piece of good information regarding real
concerns and apply it unrelated elements and real science steps in brings their
opinions back to reality they discredit it. Sorry Charlie, you're no
different than all the rest.

And
finally, I did not say that man has been living ON fruits or that man has
been consuming fruits on a year round daily basis for all of our existence. However,
it is undeniable that man has been consuming fruits wherever and
whenever they were to be found for as long as they have been found. Such has
not been the case with high fructose corn syrup.

Well here's what you wrote:

"Man
has been living with and been nourished by fruits for eons."

And that statement is baloney. You are implying that humans have
benefited from fruits since time immemorial and they haven't. In the
entire Northern Hemisphere of our planet they have had fruit in significant
quantities for no more a couple of months a year - until after the Civil
War. Even at that most of the fruit in Europe was consumed by the wealthy
because peasants and serfs were on a bare substance existence for thousands of
years and did not readily have access to fruits that were available. So
your statement is completely without merit. Germans are known as Krauts -
because they lived on cabbage products, something that stored very well and was
common in Europe. Most of the common people ate little more than grain
products, tubers, small amounts of whole milk, little meat and hardly any
fruit. I'm not taking back my true statement that you are peddling BS with
what I copied above. It is not true and you can try and wriggle out of it
any way you wish but you made it and you get to live with it.

We have increased our consumption of fruit a great deal because it is readily
available but nobody know what the consequences of that increase means - and the
study that I love points out one of them.

Simple things like potatoes which helped Europe survive famine when grain
crops failed, weren't even introduced to Europe until after Christopher made a
few round robins to the New World. Pumpkins and squash, another late fall
product also arrived with Mr. Chris. Tomatoes too - which were originally
thought to be poisonous, because the belong to the night shade family. We
in the New World also profited than what Europe did with what Chris and company
brought this direction and yes fruit was a part of it - be even then fruit was
highly seasonal. You can't store melons very long - days at most.

When people walk into today's supermarket (a very modern invention) they have
no idea what the world was like 50 years ago, let alone 200 years or more ago -
and you are one of them.

#38295,
OK. perhaps you would like to explain the reason for the success of the Gerson Anti-Cancer protocol which uses fresh apple juice combined with fresh carrot juice, both of which have a high content of fructose.

Fructose in natural foods vs. fructose in HFCS:

Fructose makes up half of the sucrose molecule, and HFCS contains similar proportions of fructose and glucose as sucrose does (HFCS is 55% fructose). Fructose may be found alone (free) or complexed with glucose as sucrose. In most fruits, much of the fructose is bound to glucose. Fructose entry into blood is slowed when it is in sucrose form, because sucrose must be first split by enzymes in intestinal cells. Fructose molecules in HFCS, however, are free, and therefore absorbed more rapidly. It is thought that the enzymes in the liver responsible for breaking down fructose are overwhelmed by the large loads of fructose delivered by HFCS-sweetened beverages, allowing for large quantities of fructose to be released into the blood.

There are no “safe” sweeteners - whole fruits and root vegetables are the only sweet-tasting foods that are health-promoting. Added Sugar in any form is calorie-dense and deficient in nutrients, and therefore detrimental to health.

Just to illustrate how beneficial eating fruit is, consider this important study. A sixty year study of about 5000 participants found that those who were in the highest quartile of fruit consumption during childhood were found to have a 38 percent lower incidence of all types of cancer as adults.
Reference.............
Maynard M, Gunnell D, Emmett P, et al. Fruit, vegetables and antioxidants in childhood and risk of cancer: tge Boyd Orr cohort. J Epidimiol Community Health 2003;57:219-225.

Your response to DQ..........
"You are implying that humans have benefited from fruits since time immemorial, and they haven't".

Your comment #38295 ........
"Goodness...... my oh my. Don't eat a steamed hot dog with 10 ppm nitrates in it but dig into a plate of butterhead lettuce with 1200 ppm nitrates . Fantastic logic. Didn't even comment on the fact that fructose - from fruit, is just as bad for those with cancer (specifically pancreatic cancer - but how about others) as is high fructose corn syrup and that the cancer actually feeds on it".

Regarding the consumption of Vegetables and Cancer........

"many studies have shown that eating fresh fruits, beans, vegetables, seeds, and nuts reduces the occurrence of cancer. I plotted cancer incidence in 25 countries against unrefined plant food intake and found that as vegetables, beans, and fruit consumption goes up 20% in a population, cancer rates typically drop 20%. But cruciferous vegetables are different; they have been shown to be twice as effective. As cruciferous vegetable intake goes up 20%, in a population, cancer rates drop 40%.
The evidence is now overwhelming that cruciferous vegetables play a major and unique role in the widely recognized protective effects of natural plant foods against cancer--and are the most important players in this arena. The biologically active compounds from raw and conservatively cooked green vegetables enhance the natural defenses of the human body against DNA damage and they even fuel the body's ability to block growth and replication of cells that are already damaged. For those in the know, these foods are the most important nutritional factors to prevent common human cancers".............http://www.drfuhrman.com/feeds/whatshappening/2009/04/cancer_alert_your_best_...

"OK. perhaps you would like to explain the reason for the success of
the Gerson Anti-Cancer protocol which uses fresh apple juice combined with fresh
carrot juice, both of which have a high content of fructose."

Give me one shred of scientific evidence (instead of anecdotal) that the
Gerson protocol works, particularly in pancreatic cancer - don't bring in the
whole world of cancer that was not addressed in the study that is at the top of
this post.

"Fructose in natural foods vs. fructose in HFCS:...."

Get of that bandwagon. I have already addressed HFCS and as you well
know from reading my posts I the same view that you do. That does not discount
the study that lumped HFCS with fructose in the experiment where together, they
significantly increased the spread of cancer. Sugar did to, but not as
fast. Please explain why fructose (all of it) fed the cancer. Stick
to the study.

"Just to illustrate how beneficial eating fruit is, consider this
important study. A sixty year study of about 5000 participants found that those
who were in the highest quartile of fruit consumption during childhood were
found to have a 38 percent lower incidence of all types of cancer as adults.
Reference.............
Maynard M, Gunnell D, Emmett P, et al. Fruit, vegetables and antioxidants in
childhood and risk of cancer: tge Boyd Orr cohort. J Epidimiol Community Health
2003;57:219-225."

That bears no resemblance to the statement made by DQ "Man has been living
with and been nourished by fruits for eons." In the
Northern Hemisphere that is not true. Fruit has historically been
available in your region for two, possibly three months of the year at
most. Your study is not germane to "eons" of supposed fruit
eating mentioned by DQ.

Regarding the consumption of Vegetables and Cancer........

"many studies have shown that eating fresh fruits, beans, vegetables,
seeds, and nuts reduces the occurrence of cancer. I plotted cancer incidence in
25 countries against unrefined plant food intake and found that as vegetables,
beans, and fruit consumption goes up 20% in a population, cancer rates typically
drop 20%. But cruciferous vegetables are different; they have been shown to be
twice as effective. As cruciferous vegetable intake goes up 20%, in a
population, cancer rates drop 40%.
The evidence is now overwhelming that cruciferous vegetables play a major and
unique role in the widely recognized protective effects of natural plant foods
against cancer--and are the most important players in this arena. The
biologically active compounds from raw and conservatively cooked green
vegetables enhance the natural defenses of the human body against DNA damage and
they even fuel the body's ability to block growth and replication of cells that
are already damaged. For those in the know, these foods are the most important
nutritional factors to prevent common human cancers".............
http://www.drfuhrman.com/feeds/whatshappening/2009/04/cancer_alert_your_best_defense_go_cruciferous.aspx

Chrisb1."

You can plot all you wish but it proves absolutely nothing until you take it
to a scientific community for peer review. Come back when you've done
that.

How to you explain the increase in Type II diabetes in the primarily
vegetarian country of India? They eat fruits and vegetables - not ham or
hot dogs. Their adult population will have an incidence of 25% Type II by
the year 2025. I point to the Type II because they are also significantly
increasing their cancer rates (rates, not just incidence) while the cancer rates
(not just incidence) in the USA are declining. http://www.chillibreeze.com/articles_various/cancer-in-India.asp
One answer is that just like in the USA their life expectancy is increasing
significantly (not decreasing as some here would lead you to believe) and the
longer lived we become the more opportunity there is for cancer and other
disease as well. Bodies do wear out you know. However, India is
still vegetarian, the USA isn't. How do you explain all that?

Are you aware that in your home country that health was improved
significantly in the Dark Ages because the people drank beer? You know
your history much better than I do but the book 1215 (the year of the original
Magna Carta) points out that Britain survived on beer because if they drank the
water they would die. Even young children began drinking beer as soon as
they were weaned. How does that relate to everything in this thread?
It significantly points out that there are a zillion factors beyond what
are being addressed here that affect the outcome of life. Pancreatic
cancer cells thrive on fructose (no different between HFCS and fruit source
fructose) and sugar as well. How do you explain that? How much has
the Gerson therapy reduced the incidence of death by pancreatic cancer? Do
you suppose that there are things that we don't yet know? Could it be that
in the quantities that we are now consuming natural fructose as NEVER
before that fructose and carbohydrates (which all create sugar in the body) are
killing us?

Modern Ways Open India’s Doors to Diabetes

By N. R. KLEINFIELD

CHENNAI, India — There are many ways to understand diabetes in this
choking city of automakers and software companies, where the disease seems as
commonplace as saris. One way is through the story of P. Ganam, 50, a proper
woman reduced to fake gold.

Her husband, K. Palayam, had diabetes do its corrosive job on him: ulcers
bore into both feet and cost him a leg. To pay for his care in a country where
health insurance is rare, P. Ganam sold all her cherished jewelry — gold, as
she saw it, swapped for life.

She was asked about the necklaces and bracelets she was now wearing.

They were, as it happened, worthless impostors.

“Diabetes,” she said, “has the gold.”

And now, Ms. Ganam, the scaffolding of her hard-won middle-class existence
already undone, has diabetes too.

In its hushed but unrelenting manner, Type 2 diabetes is engulfing India,
swallowing up the legs and jewels of those comfortable enough to put on weight
in a country better known for famine. Here, juxtaposed alongside the
stick-thin poverty, the malaria and the AIDS, the number of diabetics now
totals around 35 million, and counting.

The future looks only more ominous as India hurtles into the present,
modernizing and urbanizing at blinding speed. Even more of its 1.1 billion
people seem destined to become heavier and more vulnerable to Type 2 diabetes,
a disease of high blood sugar brought on by obesity, inactivity and genes,
often culminating in blindness, amputations and heart failure. In 20 years,
projections are that there may be a staggering 75 million Indian diabetics.

“Diabetes unfortunately is the price you pay for progress,” said Dr. A.
Ramachandran, the managing director of the M.V. Hospital for Diabetes, in
Chennai (formerly Madras).

For decades, Type 2 diabetes has been the “rich man’s burden,” a
problem for industrialized countries to solve.

But as the sugar disease, as it is often called, has penetrated the United
States and other developed nations, it has also trespassed deep into the far
more populous developing world.

In Italy or Germany or Japan, diabetes is on the rise. In Bahrain and
Cambodia and Mexico — where industrialization and Western food habits have
taken hold— it is rising even faster. For the world has now reached the
point, according to the United Nations, where more people are overweight than
undernourished.

Diabetes does not convey the ghastly despair of AIDS or other killers. But
more people worldwide now die from chronic diseases like diabetes than from
communicable diseases. And the World Health Organization expects that of the
more than 350 million diabetics projected in 2025, three-fourths will inhabit
the third world.

“I’m concerned for virtually every country where there’s
modernization going on, because of the diabetes that follows,” said Dr. Paul
Zimmet, the director of the International Diabetes Institute in Melbourne,
Australia. “I’m fearful of the resources ever being available to address
it.”

India and China are already home to more diabetics than any other country.
Prevalence among adults in India is estimated about 6 percent, two-thirds of
that in the United States, but the illness is traveling faster, particularly
in the country’s large cities.

Throughout the world, Type 2 diabetes, once predominantly a disease of the
old, has been striking younger people. But because Indians have such a
pronounced genetic vulnerability to the disease, they tend to contract it 10
years earlier than people in developed countries. It is because India is so
youthful — half the population is under 25 — that the future of diabetes
here is so chilling.

In this boiling city of five million perched on the Bay of Bengal, amid the
bleating horns of the autorickshaws and the shriveled mendicants peddling
combs on the dust-beaten streets, diabetes can be found everywhere.

A Noxious Sign of Success

The conventional way to see India is to inspect the want — the want for
food, the want for money, the want for life. The 300 million who struggle
below the poverty line. The debt-crippled farmers who kill themselves. The
millions of children with too little to eat.

But there is another way to see it: through its newfound excesses and
expanding middle and upper classes. In a changing India, it seems to go this
way: make good money and get cars, get houses, get servants, get meals out,
get diabetes.

In perverse fashion, obesity and diabetes stand almost as joint totems of
success........ more at the link

You know as well as I do that unless there is a profit motive then virtually no research is done in that area. The same can be said for Water-only-fasting and Natural Hygiene principles which offer no financial incentive for any research. However, hundreds of thousands of testimonials abound as with many alternatives here on Curezone: me being one of them.

Cancer is cancer whether you call it pancreatic cancer or whatever, the name only differs by its location. This is true for any disease ending in "itis": it is only the location that prefixes the name.

I am not surprised that lumping HFCS with fructose together arrives at the conclusions stated in the study: perhaps they should have conducted separate studies of HFCS and then with carbohydrate complex fructose, and I think the results would have been markedly different.

Q. "How do you explain the increase in Type II diabetes in the primarily vegetarian country of India? They eat fruits and vegetables - not ham or hot dogs".

A. A largely processed diet, inactivity and obesity.
"The emergence of type 2 diabetes in India, coinciding with the country's rapid economic development in the past several decades, is often characterized as a modern epidemic resulting directly from westernization"

I have been mostly vegan for over 30 years and eat a wide variety of fruits, but cancer-free so far. I wonder how many frugivores contract cancer?
Please do not lump HFCS with fructose from fruits: they are Worlds apart.

"we are now consuming natural fructose as NEVER before that fructose and carbohydrates (which all create Sugar in the body) are killing us"?

Get of that bandwagon. I have already addressed HFCS and as you well know from reading my posts I the same view that you do. That does not discount the study that lumped HFCS with fructose in the experiment where together, they significantly increased the spread of cancer. Sugar did to, but not as fast. Please explain why fructose (all of it) fed the cancer. Stick to the study.

Speaking of the study I found it interesting that they keep emphasizing "refined fructose":

Abstract

Carbohydrate metabolism via glycolysis and the tricarboxylic acid cycle is pivotal for cancer growth, and increased refined carbohydrate consumption adversely affects cancer survival. Traditionally, glucose and fructose have been considered as interchangeable monosaccharide substrates that are similarly metabolized, and little attention has been given to sugars other than glucose. However, fructose intake has increased dramatically in recent decades and cellular uptake of glucose and fructose uses distinct transporters. Here, we report that fructose provides an alternative substrate to induce pancreatic cancer cell proliferation. Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different; in comparison with glucose, fructose induces thiamine-dependent transketolase flux and is preferentially metabolized via the nonoxidative pentose phosphate pathway to synthesize nucleic acids and increase uric acid production. These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation. They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth. Cancer Res; 70(15); 6368-76. (c)2010 AACR.

Could this be because feeding refined fructose directly to cancer cells in a petri dish is different that taking fructose orally such as in a fruit? After all there are other factors to take in to account such as a slower absorption of fructose due to fiber in the fruit, the presence of insulin in the body not found in the petri dish, the presence of anticancer compounds in the fruit such as chlorogenic acid found in apples and other fruits but not in the petri dish..........

One problem with studies is that there are generally other studies refuting the one study. This is why one study cannot be relied on as evidence. For instance these studies that refute the fructose-pancreatic cancer study:

Added sugar and sugar-sweetened foods and beverages and the risk of pancreatic cancer in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study.

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. ybao@hsph.harvard.edu

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although it has been hypothesized that hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia, and insulin resistance are involved in the development of pancreatic cancer, results from epidemiologic studies of added sugar intake are inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to investigate whether the consumption of total added sugar and sugar-sweetened foods and beverages is associated with pancreatic cancer risk. DESIGN: In 1995 and 1996, we prospectively examined 487 922 men and women aged 50-71 y and free of cancer and diabetes. Total added dietary sugar intake (in tsp/d; based on the US Department of Agriculture's Pyramid Servings Database) was assessed with a food-frequency questionnaire. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were calculated with adjustment for total energy and potential confounding factors. RESULTS: During an average 7.2 y of follow-up, 1258 incident pancreatic cancer cases were ascertained. The median intakes for the lowest and highest quintiles of total added sugar intake were 12.6 (3 tsp/d) and 96.2 (22.9 tsp/d) g/d, respectively. No overall greater risk of pancreatic cancer was observed in men or women with high intake of total added sugar or sugar-sweetened foods and beverages. For men and women combined, the multivariate RRs of the highest versus lowest intake categories were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.68, 1.06; P for trend = 0.07) for total added sugar, 1.01 (0.82,1.23; P for trend = 0.58) for sweets, 0.98 (0.82,1.18; P for trend = 0.49) for dairy desserts, 1.12 (0.91,1.39; P for trend = 0.35) for sugar added to coffee and tea, and 1.01 (0.77,1.31; P for trend = 0.76) for regular soft drinks. CONCLUSION: Our results do not support the hypothesis that consumption of added sugar or of sugar-sweetened foods and beverages is associated with overall risk of pancreatic cancer.

No one is disputing the fact that there are more nitrates in many vegetables than in hot dogs, the point of contention was whether or not hot dogs might somehow be healthier than vegetables, a truly bad and unsupported assumption.

When Chris mentions studies about vegetable and fruit consumption lowering the incidence of cancer such studies are not only plentiful, they ARE scientifically conducted and peer reviewed, the same as are studies I have mentioned. I have yet to see a scientific peer reviewed study that says eating hot dogs is healthier than eating vegetables and I wager there never will be one.

Since India has always been a country where the diet is mostly vegetables and fruits, how can you possibly connect consumption of vegetables and fruits there to increased diabetes? Longevity might provide part of the answer; however, it does not explain why diabetes is increasing in all age groups. The most likely culprit for India's health woes, in addition to its historical poverty and lack of sanitation, is increased pollution and other problems brought on by industrialization and the increased adaption of other unhealthy traits that are characteristic of westernization such as processed and junk foods and a more sedentary lifestyle.

Speaking of peer reviewed scientific studies, there are an abundance of such studies which demonstrate that people who eat an abundance of fruits and vegetarians have lower incidence of diabetes than those who do not. How does that fit into your fructose paradigm?.

My statement about man consuming and being nourished by fruits for eons still stands and you cannot refute it, no matter how you try to twist it to suit your argument. Dating back to early, early man, we have consumed whatever fruits, vegetables, meats, nuts, grains, seeds, tubers and legumes, and any other food items we could hunt, gather or otherwise obtain when and where they have been around - no matter how abundant or scarce they may have been, no matter what the growing season and no matter what the geographic location. You might wish to double-check your information about the prevalence of eating fruits in centuries and millenia past, as well as your contention that fruits were not preserved in early times. Man has known how to preserve fruits by drying as well as by honey and sugar dating back to ancient civilizations in Rome, Egypt and Greece. Fruits were also popular in Europe dating back to at least medieval times, including lemons, citrons, bitter oranges (the sweet type was not introduced until several hundred years later), pomegranates, quinces, and, of course, grapes in the south and apples, pears, plums, and strawberries in the north. Figs and dates were eaten throughout Europe. Wine, which is a beverage made from fruit juice, has been consumed year round for ages. Throughout history man has eaten fruits whenever available and, presumably, doing so has resulted in nourishment. Thus my original statement.

How exactly does lumping natural fructose in with manufactured fructose in a study somehow make natural fructose equal to high fructose corn syrup? That is no different than lumping unhealthy sedentary meat eaters who consume processed meats in with meat eaters who consume healthier meats and live healthier lives and then using the study to say that all meats are unhealthy to eat.

You dispute Gerson and demand scientific peer reviewed studies? Perhaps you would be better served and better listened to at a forum like Science Based Medicine. Or Quackwatch. They love scientific studies at those places - at least so long as they get to pick and choose only the studies that support their pre-conceptions and agendas. It looks to me like you might fit right in.

BTW, you have no idea what my education is any more than you evidently have an idea that I was around in supermarkets 50 years ago and know quite well what they had in them.

Given the penchant for cutting and pasting information twisted to suit his own view, demanding peer reviewed scientific studies but ignoring them when they are counter to what he maintaind, and then arguing the point endlessly . . . there is a resemblance alright.

Hmm, hot dogs and processed meats . . . Dangerous Bacon would be a fitting name for that, wouldn't it?

I made this post at the top of a new thread because the one on the same topic
below this did not point out some simple facts. The fact that the study
found that fructose (with no qualification) causes pancreatic tumor cells to
"divide and proliferate." That is a factual statement from the
study. It also pointed out that these same cells also feed on
glucose/sugar.

I erroneously inserted the nitrate issue, and I should not have done
so. I should have stuck to the fructose issue.

I personally believe that this is a watershed study which for the very first
time ties fructose to cancer and that those in the alternative field (of which I
am one) should be shouting and waving and stomping their feet and using this as
a starting point to get the FDA to ban HFCS! Yet it seems to be the
position of some who have responded on this thread that they wish to dig in
their heels because the study included plain old ordinary fructose which is also
used as a food additive. DQ - though we disagree on the historical
significance of fructose, I do agree that in its natural form for some people it
may be beneficial. That brings up something that is very relative to me at
this point and that is that no two people on the planet are the same. You
may benefit by fresh fruits - but the guy sitting next to you might not.
One of the problems that most allopathic medicine has is that they have a one
solution fits all approach. Unfortunately there are those in the
alternative field that do exactly the same thing.

I have on my shelf a book I read many years ago and one that some in the
alternative field have picked up on and convoluted, yet some agree with
it. That is The Pulse Test by Dr. Coca an eminent immunologist who's
resume includes significant years in cancer research as well as
immunology. His resume would put 99% of the MDs to shame with his
education and research background. I read this book many years and found
that I was "allergic" to refined carbohydrates as in bread as well as
starchy carbos in potatoes and other vegetables. I tried to follow what my
pulse told me, but it was very difficult and I didn't - until I created health
problems. I now generally follow what I first discovered many years ago
regarding my food allergies. Dr. Coca points out that not everyone is
allergic the things that most of the population are allergic to. He points
out that some people can rub poison ivy and poison oak all over their bodies
while the majority of the population has to avoid it. Coca also made the
point that 5% of the population are not allergic to tobacco and tobacco
products. Case in point. Eubie Blake, a famous jazz musician and
musical producer began smoking at age six. He was interviewed on 60
Minutes about a week before his hundredth birthday and during the interview he
said "I know I'm not supposed to do this...." and then he pulled out a
cigarette and lit up. Yes he only lived to a hundred. Point is that
food is the same way and Coca makes that very clear. In his medical
practice he used the pulse test (fasting before eating and taking pulse, then
waiting 30 minutes after eating and checking pulse again and if it was more than
10 - 12 beats higher, you had an allergy to what you ate) on his allergy
patients and the positive results were amazing. One person may be able to
live on the USDA "balanced" diet (I doubt it), while others may
benefit more on one end of the McDougall spectrum (that just made me fat and
diabetic) to the other end of the Atkins spectrum with the majority somewhere in
between. There is no diet that fits everyone. Dr. Coca's book is
free on-line and available here.

Along those lines, if you read The Seven Daughters of Eve by a leading
geneticist, you will learn how our Cro-Magnon ancestors lived and what they ate
- and it was very little fruit. The majority of the those in the USA come
from the Cro-Magnon ancestry. If you take the 6,000 year approach to our
history, I can't help you. I myself am an emphatic creationist and I see
no conflict between Genesis and the "evolution" that science is
discovering. I have read some of Carl Sagan's works on evolution and how
he can make the statements and analysis that he does without seeing the hand of
God in the middle of it - is beyond me.

I think that at this point outside of pancreatic cancer the affect of
fructose and glucose certainly isn't clear, but in the research study by UCLA -
a major medical research center, it is very clear. To try and create a
scattergram of cancer relative to diet is rather pointless. The single
most correlating factor for cancer that science has discovered is latitude -
better known as lack of vitamin D.

Those With Highest Vitamin D Levels Live Longer

Remember, studies of vitamin D levels and subsequent risk of cancer are
only one type of epidemiological study. Studies
of latitude and cancer are quite clear, the less sunshine the higher the cancer
risk. Studies of dietary vitamin D intake and cancer are also mostly
supportive but such studies are limited by the tiny doses people get in their
diets.

Chris - regarding the Gerson protocol, you imply it is heavily oriented to
fructose. It is not. I have read a great book (you probably have
too) written by a fellow at Oxford Michael one Gearin-Tosh - "Living Proof,
a Medical Mutiny." He was diagnosed with bone marrow cancer, probably
the most deadly form of cancer on the planet. He was given six months to
live, investigated several different alternative methods and finally contacted
Dr. Gerson's daughter (can't remember her name off the top of my head) and had
several telephone conversations with her before finally flying to meet her in
Texas, I believe where it was. His protocol was not apple juice and carrot
juice and a coffee enema, it went way beyond that. On page 259 of he book
he summarizes his protocol and that was "...twelve freshly made vegetable
juices each day with supplements of potassium solution, iodine, thyroid, niacin
and pancreatin and a daily injection of liver juice and vitamin B12. Dr.
Gerson (i.e., Gerson's daughter) prescribed four or more coffee enemas each day:
I managed three on a good day. A castor oil enema every other
day." Unfortunately, some people have grabbed onto the Gerson
protocol and bastardized that one too. He goes on to describe his routine
as eliminating all salt and sugar and talks about how difficult it was
for him to maintain that diet. In addition to the Gerson protocol
he took other supplements including 9 grams per day of vitamin C. He also
visited an acupuncturist from time to time. And lastly, every day he spent
an hour practicing the Chinese breathing technique of breathing through his toes
and up through each and every bone in his body. He did stop his
cancer. Did he "cure" it? It is doubtful. He has
shown his personal protocol to doctor's and a Dr./professor Robert Kyle from the
Mayo Clinic made rather long comments (in the book) regarding his treatment and
in his opinion the cancer is stable (Gearin-Tosh survived for eight years on
that daily regimen - more on that later) and attributed most of Gearin-Tosh's
success primarily to the vitamin C. In reading the book I did get an appreciation
of the Gerson protocol and were I to be in a dire situation regarding cancer I'd
probably give it a try. But you know what? Like so many who get onto
an alternative route he lived for eight years with stabilized bone marrow cancer
continuing his protocol until the day he died, but he died from - guess what, a
tooth infection!!!! He rejected antibiotics because he obviously thought
he could beat anything with his protocol. I think many of us, myself
included, when we get on a particular kick we sometimes ignore reality.

A study led by Dr. Anthony Heaney, associate professor of endocrinology and
medical director of the UCLA Pituitary Tumor and Neuroendocrine Program,
showing that pancreatic cancers use the fructose, which is commonly found in
food and beverage sweeteners, to fuel their growth was highlighted Monday by
KABC-Channel 7; Tuesday by AOL
News, the Huffington
Post and San Francisco's KTVU-Channel 2; and today by Asian
News International, a San
Francisco Chronicle blog, a CBS
News blog, the website of Florida's WJXX-Channel
25, and a numerous other health and science blogs. Heaney was quoted in
the coverage.

A bizarre take on the comparison of concentrated de oxygenated high fructose corn syrup and the fructose found in a whole food in a complex of vitamin minerals and amino acids and with the ability to deliver oxygen along with the fructose and other nutrients combined to create a viable none carcinogenic food source!

Absolutely bizarre ,it's no wonder modern medical Science is so ineffective!

Science isn't really to blame per se. its the people who use it with an agenda and either fake data or make interpretations that are incorrect or use out dated methods based on outdated paradigms.

In the scientific world of big pharma, the kind of chemistry and biochemistry that they still cling to is very much out of date. Their models never changed as other root models changed in Science such as quantum physics.

It is no wonder placebo effect plays such an important role.
Marketing and statistic manipulation fills in the the rest of the gaps.

Science for hire anyone?

The old paradigm of Science popularized by Newton (reductionism)has long since been transformed. Some branches of science have not adapted their paradigms as their root structures have changed and are withering as a result.

Putting aside the diversion into nitrates, the problem with the study was that it lumped natural fructose in with unnatural high fructose corn syrup. In doing so, it not only diluted the impact the study might have had against HFCS because it wrongly implied that natural fructose was equally as dangerous as HFCS, when such is absolutely not the case.

Cro-Magnon man survived largely off seeds, berries, roots, fruits, nuts, and some smaller prey such as insects and bird eggs. Berries and other fruits may have been scarce, but they surely did consume them whenever available.

I do not think that I said the Gerson therapy is heavily slanted towards the use of fructose via juices, only that the protocol included fresh juices that contained high levels of fructose.
This carrot/apple-juice combination is one of the two "core" juices used in the Gerson Therapy. It is easy on the digestive system, and is usually taken in larger quantities than any other juice (five glasses per day is the normal regimen).
It therefore raises the question as to WHY a high fructose combination of juices would be included in this anti-cancer regimen, if fructose is associated with feeding cancer?

Natural Hygiene discovered many decades ago that allergies to certain foods or foodstuffs are the result of a bodily toxemic condition resulting from retained metabolic waste, so once this condition of the body is eradicated via water-only-fasting or an elimination diet, then allergies tend to disappear. This is something you may wish to investigate further.

I would also like to stress (as DQ has mentioned) there is a huge distinction between HFCS and the fructose found within fruits.
I think it is also significant that between 1970 and 1990, the consumption of HFCS in the U.S. has increased over 1,000 percent: according to an article in the April 2004 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Also from the study you have quoted.................
"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation. They have major significance for cancer patients, given dietary REFINED fructose consumption."

So all in all I think it is a mistake to throw ALL fructose into the mix, and include HFCS with naturally occurring fructose as being involved in cancer proliferation.